March 18, 2007

Sweet mercy is nobility's true badge.
        - William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus

The ability to show mercy -- defined as `kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power' -- is truly a noble quality. It is thought of in this way because it is often so difficult to do. Some would argue it goes against basic human nature.

When applied to the realm of sport, mercy is intertwined with the ideal of sportsmanship. In lacrosse, benevolence is evident with the proverbial `calling off of the dogs,' which is typically done by removing starters, instituting a mandatory multiple-pass rule, or forsaking a ride. It's an unwritten rule, but one that is adhered to for the most part, even if it doesn't necessarily show up in the final score.

There is, however, a very fine line involved in lacrosse leniency. Showing too much compassion for a conquered opponent, such as not even trying to score, can be viewed as emasculating or insulting. As much as many teams and individuals don't want to be embarrassed, a similar amount don't want to be pitied.

Sometimes you just can't win, even if it's by 20 goals.

We've all seen scores this spring in Division III -- and every spring for that matter -- that make you look twice to make sure you've read it correctly. 27-2. 25-1. 22-1. 33-5. We groan a little bit and think how excruciating the game must have been. If you weren't at the contest, you'd wonder if someone was running up the score, or if one team was painfully overmatched, or if it was just one of those days.

Cringe-inducing blowouts have been, and will continue to be, a constant in Division III men's lacrosse under the current rules. It's just a fact considering the growth of sport. While the competition levels are tightening up on the Division I level, men's lacrosse hasn't reached a point where there are enough feeders to keep all the small college programs near a similar plane. There has been steady growth among certain conferences and teams previously considered rout prone, but D3 is still comprised of the haves and the have-nots.

So, the question: should there be some sort of artificial means incorporated into the collegiate men's game to mitigate lopsided games?

I've grappled with this question for a couple of years now. On one hand, I am a Darwinist across the board -- political, economic, social, etc. -- so at a fundamental level I am against an ersatz truncation of a lacrosse game. Suffering a humiliating defeat is one of the microcosms of life itself, so why try to gloss over it during something as relatively inconsequential as a lacrosse game?

There is also the adage -- albeit one that is fallen out of favor in this age of helicopter parents and political correctness -- that mandates you take your beatings like a man.

With that being said, I think important life lessons about failure can be understood just as well from a 20-5 loss as a 33-5 stomping. Thus, I feel the time has come for serious consideration to be given to a rules stipulation expediting games no longer providing a worthwhile experience for the victor or the vanquished. Or the fans.

I'm not talking about a true `mercy rule' like the one currently employed by college softball, which terminates games after five innings if one team owns an eight-run lead. That makes no sense competitively or fiscally (I've been at a softball doubleheader where an opponent drove three hours and the twinbill lasted less than 90 minutes).

I'm thinking more along the lines of what collegiate women's lacrosse and the boy's high school federation uses -- the implementation of a running clock if the score differential reaches a `magic number.' On deadball situations like out-of-bounds, shots, technical and personal fouls, and goals, the clock would continue to run, bringing an uncompetitive game to a quicker conclusion.

For the college women it's 10 goals; for boy's high school it's 12. I think the latter is the better fit for NCAA men's lacrosse.

Let's be honest: if a team falls behind 17-5, it isn't going to be making a comeback. A running clock would alleviate any undercurrents of unsportsmanlike conduct, allowing coaches to teach players without the accusation of `running up the score' hanging over their heads. The losing team would understands the pain will soon be over. This option also leaves the door open for a once-in-a-lifetime comeback since the clock will return to its normal standard once a lead dips below 12 goals.

If the 20-goal blowout was an anomalous event I would not support a running-time option. If every now and again you had a game like the Salisbury-Roanoke game when two good teams met and a perfect storm of events led to 24-goal differential, it wouldn't need to be addressed. Alas, these types of games are occurring on a weekly basis involving unranked teams, and it's unnecessary.

As men's lacrosse expands its base and becomes a viable options for athletic departments all over the country, there will continue to be haves and have-nots. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's a mirror of everyday life.

We just don't need to watch it for 60 minutes.

Contact Jac Coyne at jcoyne@uslacrosse.org.